Replies

Very good points and I truly hope all was done fairly for Terri.

However, there are still actions that led to questions by the public that make this case become a national tragedy.

If all was investigated medically and fully proved, why were they so unwilling to have a new look by new eyes at the facts? Their decisions to ignore the federal law to relook, showed there was something they did not wish seen.

Terri's case assaulted the public and, therefore, the courts should have handled the case with transparency to prove to the public that this decision was not man wanting the right to kill the weak, but truly in compliance with her wishes. They could not prove her wishes. Therefore, they should have allowed the parents to take control of her.

But, the purpose was to "get on the record" acceptance of "hearsay" evidence as to her wishes. This allows the State of Florida the right to handle many cases of those whose wishes are not specified to the benefit of the State, Medicaid, Medicare.

So, again, we are back to the laws being manipulated to allow state murder for benefit and they are getting the just outrage by those who believe in the sanctity of life and see this trend as destructive to America and an offense to the rights of citizens.

There was plenty of time for concerned citizens to make changes to Fl. law and its Constitution during the two election cycles this case went through the courts. A simple majority vote by the citizens on any number of State Constitutional changes could have been made to bypass Judge Greer completely.

After all, we passed a Constitutional Amendment protecting pregnant pigs...that is now a law "on the books". Why didn't didn't supporters of changing the law removing artificial hydration and nutrition from the list of artificial life sustaining methods currently set into place, gather the signatures necessary and put it to a State vote. Simple ballot question...

If all was investigated medically and fully proved, why were they so unwilling to have a new look by new eyes at the facts? Their decisions to ignore the federal law to relook, showed there was something they did not wish seen.

That was the same argument the left used against going to war to oust Saddam...give inspections one more chance. Rush Limbaugh dismissed that POV and I agreed. But Limbaugh has since showed his inconsistency by taking the opposite position, the one you argue over the Shiavo case. But then consistency seems to be a problem for many conservatives. Even recently Limbaugh has claimed through his attorneys that there actually is a Constitutional right to privacy. Something he's always claimed never existed.